[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220412162221.7c55379548017bab61ea5103@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 16:22:21 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Mark Hemment <markhemm@...glemail.com>,
Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix regressions from wider use of ZERO_PAGE
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 23:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Either way I'd rather do this optimization in iov_iter_zero rather
> > than hiding it in tmpfs.
>
> Let's see what others say. I think we would all prefer clear_user() to be
> enhanced, and hack around it neither here in tmpfs nor in iov_iter_zero().
> But that careful work won't get done by magic, nor by me.
>
> And iov_iter_zero() has to deal with a wider range of possibilities,
> when pulling in cache lines of ZERO_PAGE(0) will be less advantageous,
> than in tmpfs doing a large dd - the case I'm aiming not to regress here
> (tmpfs has been copying ZERO_PAGE(0) like this for years).
We do need something to get 5.18 fixed. Christoph, do you think we
should proceed with this patch for 5.18?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists